Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Terumah

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand first observed that the description of the construction of the articles of the Mishkan are meant to be Mussar. By example, the measurements of the Aron are in half measures, which are meant to teach that a Talmid Chacham should be humble.

R' Frand then referenced the Keruvim which were on top of the Aron and which were fashioned to look like children. Why was this the image chosen and not of a sage? R' Frand said that some Mefarshim explain that the message is that we are to approach the Torah like children with their hallmark of enthusiasm and curiosity. When one views children learning, they have exuberance and they want to know more and grow. R' Frand quoted a Pasuk from Navi [I am unfamiliar with the citation] that Hashem says that the Jews are like a Child that and I love them.

R' Frand quoted a story in the Sefer Arzei HaParsha involving R' Elya Feinstein and his grandson, Aaron Soloveichik (who would later become the great R' Aaron). He noticed that his grandson during the Yamin Noraim was not saying the specific line in Shma Koleinu - Al Tashlichenu L'Es Zikna with much fervor. He asked him why and young Aaron explained - because I am seven years old. R' Elya responded that the meaning is not don't cast me aside when I am old - it means don't make me a like an old person when I am young. I don't want to lose my enthusiasm and curiosity.

R' Frand also quoted R' Zalman Leff who observed that if you call a Doctor a Medical Student, he will be insulted. But a sage is called a Talmid Chacham, because if you want to be a Chacham you need to be a Talmid - you need to have the excitement.

R' Frand's second vort related to the Atzei Shittim which were used in the Mishkan. The Medrash states that the world did not require the creation of cedar wood and the only reason cedar was created was so that they could be used in the Mishkan. He quoted a pasuk in Tehillim that uses the term Arzei HaLevanon - the cedar was created for the Beis HaMikdash which is called Levanon.

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Menachem Tzion who observes that cedar is strong, but Hashem does not want us to be like a cedar. He cited the Gemara in Ta'anis which states that a person should be pliable like a reed and not like cedar. However the Beis HaMikdash should be like a cedar. Why the difference? Because a person should be flexible on personal issues, but by matters of Kedushah and Torah, a person needs to stand his ground.

R' Frand quoted R' Avraham Bukspan of Miami who notes that Rashi explains that Ya'akov saw with Ruach HaKodesh that the Jews would eventually be travelling in the desert and would need the Atzei Shittim to build the Mishkan. So Ya'akov took the cedar trees to Egypt and commanded his children that when they leave Egypt they should take the trees with them.

But this did not start with Ya'akov, instead it began with Avraham who planted the trees in Be'er Sheva. R' Frand explained that Avraham Avinu planted the cedars because his message was that you need to be inflexible like a cedar on matters of Keudshah. Avraham was Avraham HaIvri because the entire world was on one side and he was on the other. R' Frand observed that Avraham was an iconoclast and stood separate from the rest of the world when he was the first to separate from idol worship and created the concept of monotheism. Avraham was unflinching and straight like a cedar and would not allow for polytheism. Ya'akov saw this and incorporated it into his thinking and the Jewish DNA. 

R' Frand closed the vort by telling a story about the Bikur Cholim shul in Seattle which was founded in 1891 and has been an Orthodox shul since its founding. R' Frand said that there was a prominent family in Seattle called the Genauers and the patriarch was R' Moshe Genauer who went from being a peddler to the owner of a famous clothing store. He had seven sons, including one named Ben Genauer who was involved in all community events including the Mikva and the day school. He also gave a gemara shiur to adults and learned with children.

Mr. Genauer told him a story that took place on Yom Kippur in the early part of the 20th century. The President stood up on a packed Yom Kippur night and said - times are a changing and we need to change with them. We need to get rid of the spitoons and we need to have mixed seating. His father stood up and yelled - Shegitz - get off the Bimah. Ben Genauer said that he wanted to crawl into the floor when he heard that. But the shul did not change, although another Orthodox shul did become Conservative. Because when it comes to Divrei Kedushah, one needs to be like cedar. 

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Mishpatim

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

The first vort R' Frand said this evening related to the first pasuk of the Parsha - וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר תָּשִׂ֖ים לִפְנֵיהֶֽם. He quoted the Ba'al HaTurim who teaches that the word הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים is an acronym - HaDayan Metzuveh Sheya'aseh Peshara Terem Ya'aseh Mishpat - (loosely translated as the Judge is commanded to make a compromise before making judgment). 

The value of compromise is seen in the Shulchan Aruch which instructs in the beginning of Choshen Mishpat that it is a Mitzva for the Judge to say the litigants before hearing a case - do you want judgment or compromise. Any any court which makes compromises is praiseworthy.

R' Frand quoted the Satmar Rav who notes that Mishpatim follows immediately after Parshas Yisro and that it contains many Mitzvos which are found in Choshen Mishpat. But why then does the Shulchan Aruch not start with Choshen Mishpat? [R' Frand quipped that if he would answer the question, he would say it starts with Aruch Chaim because you need to know what to do when you get up in the morning]. The Satmar Rav answers that Choshen Mishpat values compromise and you cannot start a book of law which contains Mitzvos like eating Matza or the rules of Kashrus, with a discussion of compromise.

R' Frand's second vort was also based on the first pasuk of the Parsha. He quoted Rashi who states that וְאֵ֨לֶּה֙ comes to join a concept to what came before it. Just as the Mitzvos in Yisro and specifically the Aseres HaDibros came from Hashem, so too do the Mitzvos in this week's Parsha.

R' Frand quoted the Rav M'Bartenura's introduction to Pirkei Avos wherein he states that all the Mesechtos of Shas are about Halacha, but Pirkei Avos is about how to treat one's fellow man. And while we are not the only society to create rules of interpersonal relationships, Pirkei Avos underscores that our rules are divine and that is why Pirkei Avos begins by stating that Moshe received the Torah from Sinai.

R' Frand linked to this to a story about a Mr Denker who was Chiloni columnist in Israel who was sent to interview R' Shach. When he got to Ponevich and asked for R' Shach, he was told that R' Shach was unavailable. So he wandered the Beis Medrash and was amazed - but not by the decibel level. R' Frand observed that secular people study in a library where one MUST keep quiet. But this was not what impressed him. Instead it was the notes on the bulletin board - "found three shirt buttons" or "found Bic pen." When Mr Denker returned to Tel Aviv, he wrote about the bulletin board, stating that when he was in university, no one would pick up a Bic pen, let alone try to return it to the owner. But this is Torah, just like the Gemara in Bava Metzia which instructs a person that if he sees his friend and his enemy struggling to unload a donkey, you help your enemy. This is what is meant by the statement that the Middos in Pirkei Avos are divine.

R' Frand's final vort was about the end of the Parsha where Moshe goes up on the mountain and the Jews say to him in Shemos 24:7 -  וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע. This seemingly does not belong here and Rashi explains that this takes place before Matan Torah in Parshas Yisro. R' Frand then referred to the Gemara in Avodah Zarah which states that Hashem went to all the nations of the world and asked whether they wanted the Torah and they in turn asked what was stated in the Torah. When each nation heard, they rejected the Torah.

The Vilna Gaon asks - but don't you think that there must have been some members of the nations who did want the Torah? He answers that that yes there were some - and those people became converts. The Chida supports this, noting that the Gemara refers to a Ger Sheba L'Hisgayer - a convert who comes to convert. Grammatically, it should read - an Akum who comes to convert. The reason it does not is because he was already a Ger, he just needed to convert. 

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Friday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Yisro

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha yesterday [as we were at a beautiful simcha last night, I was unable to see the shiur live]. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

When Yisro comes to visit Moshe in the beginning of the Parsha, the Torah states in 18:7 וַיֵּצֵ֨א משֶׁ֜ה לִקְרַ֣את  חֹֽתְנ֗וֹ. Rashi explains that this was a great honor for Yisro, because not only did Moshe come out to greet him, but so did Aharon, Nadav & Avihu. And because Moshe & Aharon went out, everyone came as well. 

Later in the same pasuk it states וַיִּשְׁתַּ֨חוּ֙ וַיִּשַּׁק־ל֔וֹ וַיִּשְׁאֲל֥וּ אִֽישׁ־לְרֵעֵ֖הוּ לְשָׁל֑וֹם. Rashi asks - who bowed down to who? It must be that Moshe bowed because it uses the term אִֽישׁ and Moshe is referred to in Bamidbar 12:3 -וְהָאִ֥ישׁ משֶׁ֖ה עָנָ֣יו using that term.

The Nesivos asks - why did Rashi use this Gezera Shava to learn that this was Moshe? In Shemos 2:21 the Torah states וַיּ֥וֹאֶל משֶׁ֖ה לָשֶׁ֣בֶת אֶת־הָאִ֑ישׁ and there, Yisro was the אִֽישׁ? R' Frand also quotes the Chasam Sofer who asks why Rashi quoted from Beha'alosecha and not from Shemos 32:1 where the Torah recounts that the Jews stated כִּי־זֶ֣ה | משֶׁ֣ה הָאִ֗ישׁ.

Rabbi Frand quoted the Sefer Arzei HaParsha who cited the Sefer Shir Ma'on (written by the grandson of the Chasam Sofer) who explains that the reference to Moshe in Beha'alosecha is not an invented Gezera Shava. Its an explanation of who Moshe was -וְהָאִ֥ישׁ משֶׁ֖ה עָנָ֣יו - Moshe was the most humble person on Earth and this explains who bowed down to who.

R' Frand said a second vort related to the fact that the Parsha is named Yisro, which Rashi states is due to Yisro's addition of a Parsha to the Torah - וְאַתָּ֣ה תֶֽחֱזֶ֣ה מִכָּל־הָ֠עָ֠ם אַנְשֵׁי־חַ֜יִל. In so doing, Yisro advises Moshe about setting up a court system in which there are a series of judges to assist Moshe with the work load. But Yisro also says to Moshe as a prelude in Shemos 18:20 וְהִזְהַרְתָּ֣ה אֶתְהֶ֔ם אֶת־הַֽחֻקִּ֖ים וְאֶת־הַתּוֹרֹ֑ת וְהֽוֹדַעְתָּ֣ לָהֶ֗ם אֶת־הַדֶּ֨רֶךְ֙ יֵ֣לְכוּ בָ֔הּ וְאֶת־הַמַּֽעֲשֶׂ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַֽעֲשֽׂוּן. Why did Yisro need to tell Moshe that he should teach these things - he is already doing that?

R' Frand cited R' Bukspan who quoted the Chofetz Chaim which based on the Gemara explains that each of these terms has a special meaning. And the last term  אֲשֶׁ֥ר יַֽעֲשֽׂוּן - means to act Lifnim Meshuras HaDin - act above the letter of the law. There is an opinion in the Gemara that Yerushalayim was destroyed because people did not act Lifnim Meshuras HaDin - they were quick to run to court instead of trying to make a Peshara - a compromise.

R' Frand remarked that the United States is a litigious society and that this seems to have rubbed off on the Jews of this country as well as people will run to Beis Din instead of trying to work things out. 

Yisro's final advice to Moshe was that people should try to work things out and compromise as this will reduce the number of cases that are heard and that if people practiced Lifnim Meshuras HaDin it would cut down on the number of cases.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Beshalach

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

R' Frand began his first vort by quoting R' Tzvi Cheshen who asks, where is the source for the concept of Hiddur Mitzva - doing a Mitzva in the most beautiful way? He answers that we learn it from Az Yashir and specifically Shemos 15:2 - זֶ֤ה אֵלִי֙ וְאַנְוֵ֔הוּ . This pasuk is the source that we should buy a more beautiful Lulav, or silver Menorah, or beautiful Sukkah. But why is this rule not taught by the Torah where these Mitzvos are commanded? Why is it learned from Az Yashir?

He answers by quoting Pirkei Avos 5:4 which states that there were 10 miracles performed in Egypt and 10 at Yam Suf. The Rav M'Bartenura explains some of the miracles on Yam Suf, including that the waters formed a tent over the Jews when they walked through and that the ground in the sea bed was as dry as a desert and was not muddy. 

But why were these additional miracles necessary, beyond just the splitting of the sea? Hashem does not generally perform supernatural miracles when they are not required! And certainly, the Jews who were escaping Egypt would not have complained about having their feet muddy.

R' Cheshen answered that Hashem performed these additional miracles to show his love for the Jewish people. R' Frand gave an example of buying a piece of jewelry for a loved one. You don't simply hand them the bracelet. Instead, it is given in a fancy box, perhaps wrapped in special paper and adorned with a bow. This is the way that you show someone that you love them - its not just the present, its how the present is given.

When we perform Mitzvos Aseh we express our love for Hashem. And while we can fulfill the mitzva of Hadlakas Neiros with any Menorah, using a fancy silver Menorah shows how much more we appreciate the Mitzvah and Hashem.

The second vort that R' Frand said related to a pasuk earlier in the parsha (Shemos 13:18) - וַֽחֲמֻשִׁ֛ים עָל֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם. R' Frand quoted four explanations for the word וַֽחֲמֻשִׁ֛ים. Rashi provides two of the explanations - that the Jews left Egypt armed, or that 1/5 of the Jews left Egypt as the other 4/5 had dies during Makkas Choshech.

R' Frand then quoted the Targum Yirushalmi who explains the term "armed" means that the Jews were armed with good deeds. He also cited the Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel who explains that וַֽחֲמֻשִׁ֛ים means that each family left with five children. But how is it possible that each family had exactly five children?

R' Frand quoted the Sefer Be'er Yosef who weaves together all of the four explanations in one. He cites Rashi who explains that the Jews who died were those who did not want to leave Egypt. But these were adults, not children who had no opinion in the matter. After the parents of these children died, leaving 4/5 of the Jewish children orphans, the remaining Jews agreed that each family would adopt four parentless families. Thus, when the Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel says that each family had five children, it means that they had five sets of children - their own natural children and the children of four other families whose parents had died. These are the "good deeds" mentioned by the Targum Yerushalmi.

R' Frand mentioned the story of Nicholas Winton, a British gentleman who arranged for 669 Jewish children from Czechoslovakia to be saved from the Holocaust in 1939. There is a video showing him sitting in the front row of an audience of people, without realizing that he had saved all of them. During the video, he is introduced to the now grown up people who he saved - the video is quite powerful and can be found here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqqbM1B-mPY.

R' Frand said a final vort related to this week's parsha and connected to Tu BShvat in 1944. The Belzer Rebbi had emigrated and was having a program in a small shul in Chaifa. He quoted the famous statement of Rashi that Az Yashir refers to the future singing at the time of Mashiach. But why was it necessary to refer to Mashiach now? He explained that the Jews who sang were the same Jews who must have lost most of their relatives in Choshech in which 80% of the Jews died. How did they say Shira? He answered that they sang that in the future there will be Techiyas HaMeisim - when everyone will be together with those who they lost.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Friday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Bo

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha last evening. [As we are visiting family in California and the shiur was 6 PM PDT, it is being blogged on Friday]. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

In Makas Choshech, the Torah records that Hashem said to Moshe (Shemos 10:21) נְטֵ֤ה יָֽדְךָ֙ עַל־הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וִ֥יהִי ח֖שֶׁךְ עַל־אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם וְיָמֵ֖שׁ חֽשֶׁךְ. The Sefer Milchemes Yehuda notes that there is an anomaly between Choshech and all the other Makkos. By the other plagues, there is a warning from Moshe, whereas in this Makah, there was no warning - Moshe was just told to put out his staff. The Michemes Yehuda explains that this Makah was a warning, as if to say to Pharaoh - you are just not getting it - you are blind. Don't you see what is happening to your country? If you won't notice it, Hashem says, I will make you blind.

R' Frand quoted a well known expression - there are none as blind as those who will not see. This was emblematic of Pharaoh. He had been beaten to a pulp and his country was falling apart, and he did not get it, because he was blind to it. 

The Milchemes Yehuda quotes a Pasuk in Tehillim 105:28 - שָׁ֣לַֽח חֹ֖שֶׁךְ וַיַּֽחֲשִׁ֑ךְ וְלֹֽא־מָ֜ר֗וּ אֶת־דְּבָרֽוֹ - He sent darkness and it darkened, and they did not disobey His word. The Medrash explains - Hashem said to the angels, the Egyptians were worthy of the Makah of Choshech and the angels agreed. During some of the plagues, the angels objected, but when it came to Choshech, they did not object, since this was a warning to Pharaoh.

The Milchemes Yehuda quoted another Medrash which states that the Choshech was a thick as a dinar coin, meaning that the darkness was tangible. The Milchemes Yehuda explains that the use of the image of a dinar was meant to symbolize that people become blinded by money (as well as other Ta'avaos). 

R' Frand said a second vort related to the pasuk in Shemos 10:6 which states that after Moshe warned Pharaoh about Makkas Arbeh - "וַיִּ֥פֶן וַיֵּצֵ֖א מֵעִ֥ם פַּרְעֹֽה" - that Moshe turned and left. The Ramban explains that the people were already scared after the prior Makkos and that once Moshe told them that what was left over from the prior plagues would be eaten by the Arbeh, Moshe left to give them time to process this and to give the people time to do Teshuva. The Ramban explains that Moshe was correct, as the Torah states in the next pasuk that the people said to Pharaoh - הֲטֶ֣רֶם תֵּדַ֔ע כִּ֥י אָֽבְדָ֖ה מִצְרָֽיִם? 

R' Frand quoted R' Simcha Zissel Brody in the Sefer Sam Derech, who asked why Moshe did not stick around as he could see that the people were having doubts? He answers that there is something innate to humans, where they say to themselves - you can't tell me that I am wrong. People need time for self contemplation and Moshe understood this basic concept of psychology. In fact, had Moshe stayed, they may have just said - we don't need to listen to you.

R' Brody said that by weddings, the second Beracha is Yozer HaAdam. But why is this said at a wedding, as opposed to when a child is born, or at a bris, or even a Bar Mitzva? Because a man cannot function without the aid of a wife, as she will make him whole. Why is this? Because people don't like to advice from outsiders, which puts a person in a difficult position, as a person wont see or admit his faults. So Hashem created the institution of marriage - she is not you and she is not an outsider. R' Frand said that his wife does not appreciate when he says this, but a man needs his wife to tell him when he is being an idiot. A man is complete in this sense as he gains the assistance of someone who can tell him - this is not a good idea (and even occasionally she makes mistakes and you can let her know, but never tell her that she is being an idiot, says R' Frand)

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!

Thursday's Parsha Tidbits - Parshas Va'era

The following is a brief summary of some of thoughts said over by R' Frand on the parsha this evening. I have attempted to reproduce these vorts to the best of my ability. Any perceived inconsistency is the result of my efforts to transcribe the shiur and should not be attributed to R' Frand.

After the plague of עָרֹֽב, Pharaoh calls Moshe & Aharon and tells them that he is ready to allow the Jews to sacrifice to Hashem, albeit only in Egpyt (Shemos 8:21). Moshe then responds to Pharaoh in the next pasuk - וַיֹּ֣אמֶר משֶׁ֗ה לֹ֤א נָכוֹן֙ לַֽעֲשׂ֣וֹת כֵּ֔ן כִּ֚י תּֽוֹעֲבַ֣ת מִצְרַ֔יִם נִזְבַּ֖ח לַֽיהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהֵ֑ינוּ הֵ֣ן נִזְבַּ֞ח אֶת־תּֽוֹעֲבַ֥ת מִצְרַ֛יִם לְעֵֽינֵיהֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א יִסְקְלֻֽנוּ.

R' Frand asked - how is it that Moshe was concerned about the Jews being stoned by the Egyptians for offering this sacrifice? Wouldn't Hashem have protected the Jews? In fact it almost seems like an affront to Hashem to even make this statement!

R' Frand enhanced his question by quoting R' Paam who cited a pasuk in Ezra, where Ezra HaSofer says that he called a fast because he is embarrassed to ask the king for help in protection from the army. After all, we have Hashem to protect us. So why is Moshe worried about the Egyptians attacking them, when Hashem can protect them.

R' Frand quoted the Chassam Sofer who explained that Moshe was not worried that the people would attack them. Instead, Moshe's concern was that it was לֹ֤א נָכוֹן֙ - its not right to do it in front of people, as its not Menschlich. Moshe's response to Pharaoh was - you have us pegged wrong, as we don't do this in front of people and make them feel bad.

R' Frand quoted a story about R' Paam's father who was the Rav of a city in Lithuania. While he ate gebrokts, he would only do so privately as he had members of the community who were Chassidim and did not eat that. Meanwhile, the prior Rav would show a bowl of Matza balls in the main thoroughfare. But R' Paam's father did not want people to feel bad. The lesson is respect others and don't make them feel bad.

R' Frand said a second vort from the Chassam Sofer as quoted in the Sefer Arzei HaParsha. The vort related to the pasuk in Shemos 6:13 - וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר יְהֹוָה֘ אֶל־משֶׁ֣ה וְאֶל־אַֽהֲרֹן֒ וַיְצַוֵּם֙ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֶל־פַּרְעֹ֖ה מֶ֣לֶךְ מִצְרָ֑יִם לְהוֹצִ֥יא אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מֵאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם.

R' Frand noted that this is the pasuk which precedes the Makkos. Rashi explains that Hashem was telling Moshe & Aharon to be patient with the Jewish people during this time and to show respect to Pharaoh when they dealt with him.

R' Frand asked - why is it that they are receiving the instruction to show respect now? They had already visited with Pharaoh and spoke with him previously! Additionally the pasuk implies that because they were treat Pharaoh with respect, it would allow them to take the Jews out of Egypt. But what is the connection?

The Chassam Sofer explains that embarrassment can atone for one's sins. And this is the easiest form of atonement, rather than suffer physical or financial injury. Hashem was telling them, if you don't show respect and you embarrass him, I won't be able to bring down these punishments on him. Don't let your emotions control you, treat him with respect so that I am able to punish him.

R' Frand connected this with a story about a couple who had problems conceiving and were childless after 20 years of marriage. They went to R' Chaim Kanievsky and after listening, he told them that perhaps that was what was meant to be. They went back and asked for an Eitza and he said - get a beracha from someone who was publicly embarrassed and did not answer back.

At some point later they were at a Bar Mitzva where a woman was publicly humiliated by someone calling her a thief in connection with an apartment. The woman had been taken to a Din Torah and prevailed, yet here she was being called a thief at a Bar Miztva. The couple ran over to her and said - please don't answer back. She complied and they asked her for a Beracha of being able to have children. She gave them the Beracha and after 21 years of marriage they had a child.

R' Frand remarked that he has told that story several times, but he has a proof to it from Chumash. In Parsha Vayeitzei, Rachel asks Leah for the Duda'im that her son had brought her. In response, Leah says to Rachel in Bereishis 30:15 - הַֽמְעַט֙ קַחְתֵּ֣ךְ אֶת־אִישִׁ֔י וְלָקַ֕חַת גַּ֥ם אֶת־דּֽוּדָאֵ֖י בְּנִ֑י. 

Rachel could have answered back - your husband? He was mine and was supposed to marry me first, but our father switched us. And, in order to prevent you from being humiliated - I gave you the signs that Ya'akov had taught me. So how can you say I took your husband?

But Rachel did not say anything...and eight pesukim later she gave birth to Yosef.

If you have seen this post being carried on another site, please feel free to click http://www.kosherbeers.blogspot.com to find other articles on the kosherbeers blogsite. Hey its free and you can push my counter numbers up!